Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento has some more thoughts on appropriation and fair use -- and it's always great when he and Alfred Steiner get into it in the comments. I think the real value in Sergio's shoe-on-the-other-foot examples is that they point up a problem with the emphasis on "different purpose" in the fair use analysis. That is, imagine a corporation uses an artist's work in a major ad campaign to sell their widgets. Couldn't they argue that their use had a completely different purpose (selling widgets) than the artist's ... and thus was transformative ... and thus fair use?

It's a good question, for which the Deaccession Police will give their usual answer (i.e., shut up).

But this sale really is a good example of why it's silly to think of what the AAMD does as anything resembling "ethical" reasoning. They have no way of grappling with a sale like this, no standpoint from which to evaluate it. They just ask a simple question: are you using the sales proceeds to buy more art? If the answer is yes, there ends the "ethical" inquiry.

Friday, November 07, 2014

UPDATE 2: Tons of coverage of the news, including: Mark Stryker: DIA supporters elated by bankruptcy decision. Wall Street Journal: Art Was Key to the Deal. Randy Kennedy: "Grand Bargain" Saves the Detroit Institute of Arts. (And more from the Times.) Jillian Steinhauer at Hyperallergic. The museum applauds. Slate's Jordan Weissmann: "So Detroit gets to keep its art collection. Pensioners get to keep a little more of their income. And the museum never has to worry about municipal finances ever again. A nice bargain all around." Nathan Bomey: "With one sentence -- 'The market value of the art, therefore, is irrelevant in this case' -- Rhodes squashed 16 months of debate." Kriston Capps: "One way to think about Detroit's art collection: Love for it inspired foundations to help rescue pensions."